Ugh. How many times will we have to go through this farce? Trump says something off the cuff using gratuitously inflammatory language, Democrats and the Trump Deranged pretend he meant the words in the worst way imaginable, and the biased and dishonest mainstream media tries to bombard the public with the latest “Trump is dangerous and a threat to democracy!” narrative. Will it happen ten more times? Fifty? A hundred?
The current Axis fake-freakout is typical of the script. Trump was riffing yesterday about how countries like Mexico and China are making money from President Biden’s electric vehicle obsession. “Mexico has taken, over a period of thirty years, 34% of the automobile manufacturing business in our country. Think of it, it went to Mexico,” Trump told the crowd. “China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re gonna build the cars in Mexico and think, they think that they’re gonna sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border.”
“Let me tell you something. To China, if you’re listening, President Xi — and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal,” he continued. “Those big, monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re gonna get that, you’re gonna not hire Americans; and you’re gonna sell the cars to us — no. We’re gonna put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you’re not gonna be able to sell those cars. If I get elected — now if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. Its gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that’ll be the least of it. But they’re not gonna sell those cars, they’re building massive factories,” Trump said.
So “bloodbath” clearly meant a financial and commercial bloodbath, using the term metaphorically, like the news media does all the time. They even used it last week: Multiple outlets described the change in leadership and subsequent layoffs at the Republican National Committee (RNC) as a “bloodbath.” What? You mean they were actually claiming that the GOP was slaughtering people? Of course not, but never mind: the Democratic Party-bolstering news media has no shame, so they immediately pretended—and wrote—that Trump had threatened a literal blood bath if he lost the election again.
All those Twitter accounts above and more spread the latest Big Lie. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is truly beneath contempt, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” today, “We just have to win this election because he’s even predicting a bloodbath. What does that mean? He’s going to exact a bloodbath? There’s something wrong here. How respectful I am of the American people and their goodness. But how much more do they have to see from him to understand that this isn’t what our country is about?”
Joe Scarborough followed the circulating Axis talking points, and tweeted out a photo from the January 6, 2021 riot with the message,“Donald Trump’s America. And he’s proud of it. Promised another ‘bloodbath’ if he loses again.” Twitter Daddy Elon Musk responded directly to this lie, writing, “Jan 6 was not a ‘bloodbath’ by any definition and Trump was referring to job losses in the auto industry when he used that word. Your post is extremely misleading.” Morning Joe, chastened, took down the tweet. But you know Democrats and the news media will be repeating this latest false tale all year, like the story that Trump called white supremacists “fine people” and that he said he’d be a dictator “from Day One.”
Nevertheless, these things wouldn’t happen if Donald Trump didn’t have the learning curve of an annelid worm. He should know by now that using terms like “bloodbath” is just asking to be misrepresented and is giving the Trump Deranged ammunition to confound the lazy and gullible voter. Over at “Victory Girls,” Carol Marks hypothesizes that Trump deliberately says these things to make his foes’ heads explode. “Don’t think the 45th President of the United States of America didn’t know what he was doing for one second when he used the term bloodbath to get the left all ginned up,” she writes. “Donald J. Trump is getting all eyes on him again during this season’s political campaigning. He is giving a masterclass on how to use language against the left….We all know that Donald Trump is the king of marketing and public relations. He used those bloodbath words on purpose. It got the left talking about him, and more importantly, it got Biden talking about him, too.”
Sorry, that seems just plain stupid to me. It would be stupid if Trump did this accidentally, and even more stupid if he used “bloodbath” intentionally. Trump should be able to beat a pathetic wreck like Joe Biden easily, but I have faith in him: he’s fully capable of losing a couple million votes with some horrible ad-lib comment we can’t even imagine right now.
As Samuel L. Jackson so wisely said before a velociraptor ate him…
Ethics Alarms 
Not a Trump fan here, but it seems fair to say that a “bloodbath” might describe the actions of “mostly peaceful” protestors if Trump wins.
Oh, I almost guarantee it.
It would be stupid if Trump did this accidentally, and even more stupid if he used “bloodbath” intentionally.
So let me get this straight. If others use the word “bloodbath” intentionally, it is OK. But Trump’s using it is either stupid, or even more stupid.
Right. The others aren’t running for President. The others aren’t facing organized bias. The others don’t have to worry about being routinely smeared by Demorcats and the media. Exactly. As Claudine Gay might say, it all depends on the context.
The principle is don’t give your enemies a stick to beat you with.
Bingo.
To continue your Jurassic Park sentiment; as Jeff Goldblum says “life will find a way” so too will the left find a way to twist words, add words or even make shit up when it comes to Trump. There isn’t a twig small enough that they won’t pick up and club him with as they claim democracy is threatened.
All the more reason to avoid unforced errors, no?
Actually no. Surrendering your ability to convey a sentiment because the media will intentionally misrepresent the statement is exactly what the opposition wants. Language is the only weapon a candidate can use to persuade voters. Having to use 50 words to explain the expected outcome of an event when one colorful word will have more impact is no different than rules that make women compete against biological men it creates a metaphorical anchor on the candidate.
Presidents have to act and talk like Presidents, Chris. This is for the good of the nation, the integrity and status of the office, and for the culture itself. This has always been trump’s primary deficit, and why we are in the terrible position of depending on the worst possible character to defeat the aspiring dictator ship of the far left. One can still be “authentic” and wise, civil, responsible and fair. But Trump is not such a one.
Seems like you are arguing on when to use the second and third niggardly principles. Perhaps some clarification here?
I don’t think so. “Bloodbath” in the context of alleged calls by Trump for riots and insurrections and all the Fascist slurs isn’t like niggardly,” which is literally a benign word and interpreted otherwise because of ignorance. “Bloodbath,” like Trump’s stupid “poisoning the blood of the nation” line slips into a pattern. If David Duke kept using “niggardly” over and over, it would be fair to conclude that he was trying to send an inflammatory message. The Niggardly Principles don’t deal with that situation, though #2 is the closest. Also, a leader and Presidential candidate doesn’t have the luxury that normal people do. Ross Perot got in trouble for using “you people” in front of the NAACP. He was innocent, but he should have known better and been more careful, not because the word might offend (Niggardly Principle territory)but because he should have known that his opponents were looking for the “stick to beat him with.”
Perhaps instead of leading off with “stop making me defend XXX” you should start with a condemnation of those who deliberately attempt to mislead their audience. Why not identify the media who cannot be trusted by name. Is Glenn Kessler giving the Post any Pinnochios on this? ( I am assuming their writers are participating in the narrative and/or will not be calling out the deception. What is Snopes saying about these insinuations.
What can be done to broadcast media who intentionally deceive the public in their reporting? I cannot believe that the media runs their attacks through the legal department to ensure they have a weasel word or two to create plausible deniability.
It should not be necessary to defend anyone from media deception and to blame any candidate for be misrepresented by those claiming journalist credentials is unfair to the candidate no matter who he or she is. The public focus should be on the deceiver and not on the victim of unscrupulous journalists.
Chris,
I agree with you. Also, is there any doubt that the media intends actual malice in their actions? I know we always put up with a lot of trash from the vaunted “fourth estate” in preserving freedom of the press, but when their malevolent machinations endanger the republic there has to be a limit, and there has to be accountability. I constantly hear, “Republicans do the same thing!” But “Republicans Pounce!” is not the same as “Democrats (and their allies) Lie!” Calling them out is just a start.
While a substantial segment of the public seems to be catching on to their deceptions, I fear that number is not accelerating quickly enough to outpace their efforts by election day.
Time alone will tell whether any “bloodbath” will occur and if so, what form it will take.
I agree with you in principle: don’t give your opponent an easy way to score points on you.
However, basically, with respect to Trump, that means he cannot use any type of metaphorical language; they will take him literally if they can exploit it. Hell, if he says he is going to “beat” Biden, the press will probably get the vapors exclaiming that Trump is threatening to pummel a frail, senile octogenarian.
I am not going to fault Trump one bit for this particular use of language.
Any blame (and scorn) belongs in one place here.
-Jut
I have mentioned this before, but a quote from somewhere in 2016 has stuck with me to this day.
Trump’s opponents take what he says literally but not seriously. Trump’s supporters take what he says seriously but not literally.
Now a favorite refrain. And an established condition and environment in which Trump knows he operates. It would be prudent for him to calculate accordingly.
Right. The others aren’t running for President. The others aren’t facing organized bias. The others don’t have to worry about being routinely smeared by Demorcats and the media. Exactly. As Claudine Gay might say, it all depends on the context.
No, it doesn’t depend on the context. Or rather, it does, but not in the way you mean.
Trump’s use of the word “bloodbath”, within the context he said it, was completely correct and legitimate. It only became atrocious when taken completely out of context by bald faced liars who couldn’t be fussed to insert the readily available clip in their reports, and will never be held accountable for their endless lying.
The fundamental problem here is coming up with a list of words and phrases, a priori, that Trump may not use, ever, in any context. Consider his Charlotte remarks — leftist media still lies about what he said, and no word in his remarks would appear anywhere on such a list.
I’d agree with you, Jeff, if Trump wasn’t such a sloppy speaker. He said, “If I get elected — now if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. Its gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that’ll be the least of it. But they’re not gonna sell those cars, they’re building massive factories.” That word salad is just begging to be interpreted in the worst light possible. Anyone who speaks that carelessly shares responsibility for being misunderstood, sincerely or intentionally. “now if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. Its gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that’ll be the least of it”—come on. I speak for a living, and if I spoke that incoherently and was misinterpreted, I’d blame myself 100%.
Anyone who speaks that carelessly shares responsibility for being misunderstood, sincerely or intentionally.
Intentional misunderstanding? What is that?
Speaking carelessly isn’t the same thing as speaking unclearly. Using multiple negatives, for instance, is a perfect example of speaking unclearly and an invitation to being misunderstood. Speaking carelessly, on the other hand risks clearly stating that which didn’t intend to be said: a Kinsley Gaffe.
Trump did neither — he was very clear, and said what he intended to say.
Which leads to what this is all about. Not intentional misunderstanding, but rather intentional misrepresentation. Dan Rather got turfed for that. What is going to happen to the oddly synchronized parade of media knuckleheads who did precisely the same thing?
Intentional misunderstanding is allowing confirmation bias to distort your interpretation while being fully aware that this is what’s happening. The journalists know they hate Trump and want to believe the worst about him, but they convince themselves that the results of their bias is “objective,” knowing that it isn’t, and believing the bias is justified.
Media Reports Trump Threatened Nuclear War After He Says, ‘This Guacamole Is The Bomb!’
I saw that! Perfect!
Just like the kitchen SOTU rebuttal isn’t going to rile up anyone who wasn’t already riled up, bloodbath isn’t going to rule anyone up who hasn’t already chosen to hate Donald trump.
It’s actually smart at this point. Undecideds are waking up to the horrible media bias. And every time the media-Democrat machine, dare I say, “pounces” on something ultimately innocuous, more people get more frustrated with the Leftwing propaganda machine than they do with Trump’s flourishes.
I agree with that analysis: it is an extreme example of news media bias, and it is pretty hard to see it any other way unless one’s eyes are so jaundiced by Trump Derangement that apples look like lemons. But I do not think all of this was planned by Trump, as some are claiming